Thank you–this is so clarifying to what I had less clearly stated, as it was more a feeling I was trying to describe (INFP here). This really helped me understand more of what I was attempting to describe: “The thing with artists is that we use the word “personal” often as code for the archetypal and suprahuman.” They touch us “personally” yet they are way beyond the personal–from a “supra” force/energy. And James’ response in which he writes so much valuable information on the daimon seems to me to correlate to what you said (the quote of yours I included above). So the archetype comes from beyond the personal into the personal psyche. Would you say then that it is through the eyes of the beholder at all, or that the beholder is the daimon and beyond the individual also?
Also, when I think of Jung’s psychic “strata,” rather than visualizing it as a hotel or skyscraper building of some sort with floors in linear vertical position, I tend to imagine the “strata” as all imbuing one another and not actually vertical or linear, although the strata of the layers of ground beneath our feet are a common image for it. Maybe they are more like dimensions of psyche rather than vertical layers. I can understand Freud’s point, but yet I see Jung’s point about the strata also. I guess I find it a rather convenient way to image and describe the various aspects of psyche. And I so agree with you about how the personal is already a part of the collective–we are born into a family which is part of the societal/cultural collective already, soon as we are born. And then Jung also argues that we are born with the instincts as archetypal forces including ancestral memories.